# Ethical Solution For Our Worst Murderers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 29, 2000, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656 "2000-02-29T20:31:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2000, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/61 "2000-03-05T08:37:00Z")
Edlyn: In the time-honored manner of your fiance, I will provide a link to material that answers your questions. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001355.html). * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Edlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8797f3/32.png) [@Edlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edlyn)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2000, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/62 "2000-03-05T14:32:00Z")
Well Spiritus, I have now read this discussion three times; the third time following your link. It’s a shame that a good topic such as this has taken the turns that it has. Do you think it might be possible to get it back on track? That’s what I was attempting to do with my questions to you. If you are willing to do so, you may choose which aspect (from this mess) to discuss. * * * You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods- ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/63 "2000-03-06T06:08:00Z")
I was asked what her libertarian government would do **if she committed a crime OUTSIDE ITS JURISDICTION**. Well, what the heck would your _present_ government do, other than wring its hands and play your family a soothing violin melody? Yet, she says > [@](#): > > I guess I see safeguards for this sort of thing set up by our democratic system as worth a little coercion. Huh? _What_ safeguards? There are no safeguards for you if you go abroad and steal. You would think a man who enjoys sniping at informal logic would have jumped on this. Funny that he didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2000, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/64 "2000-03-05T20:31:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Why do you feel it is too simplistic? What are the complexities and shadings of the “real world” that you refer to? Like all sentencing guidelines, it removes the quality of judgment from justice. I view this as a bad thing. Motivations, mitigating or extenuating circumstances, prior record of conduct by both parties, these are all things that I feel need to be factored when determining what punishment is suitable for a crime. > [@](#): > > Ah, what abuses are you referring to? Libertarian stated that in his ideal system of justice any crime for which the victim did not agree to property reimbursment would result in the perpetrator losing his right to life and/or liberty. BTW: Lib, when pulling a C&P for this post I noticed a post of yours directed at me (03-02-2000 01:59 PM). I had not seen this post before. I believe it was during one of the periods of boards instability. If you wish, I will happily go back and address your points. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2000, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/65 "2000-03-05T20:37:00Z")
As you wish, Spiritus. Incidentally, I didn’t state what you stated I stated, unless by “victim” you meant to say “criminal”. Do you view the two as ethically equivalent? ---
**Author:** ![Edlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8797f3/32.png) [@Edlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edlyn)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/66 "2000-03-06T03:05:00Z")
Ok Spiritus. > [@](#): > > KISS – what an admirable basis for a system of justice. Let us abandon all of those complicated measures which we have developed to deal with the complex realities of [the] world and replace them with simple, mindless and arbitrary punishments. Simple answers to complex questions may not yield justice, but they will help simple folk feel better. > [@](#): > > Like all sentencing guidelines, it removes the quality of judgment from justice. I view this as a bad thing. Motivations, mitigating or extenuating circumstances, prior record of conduct by both parties, these are all things that I feel need to be factored when determining what punishment is suitable for a crime. First of all, the court system need not be much different in basic structure than it is now. Depending upon the aggrieved action it may be decided in a “Small Claims Court” or a higher court for a jury trial. The major difference would be on the focus of determining who initiated force abridging the right(s) of another. It would not only be reasonable, but fair, that the individual who initiated force would bear all court costs and attorneys fees. In addition, restitution made to the plaintiff. If an individual is a threat to the lives and safety of others, prison sentences should be given. In addition, the cost of his/her upkeep is at the prisoner’s expense. As far as excuses… nope, nadda, forget it. Responsibility lies with the individual or the parent(s). ## I view _this_ as justice being served. You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods- ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/67 "2000-03-06T17:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > **Lib** : As to what is fair retaliation when a victim cannot be restored, let the victim decide this. > > **Lib** : If the man cannot restore your photograph, then his life is yours. > > **Me** : Libertarian stated that in his ideal system of justice any crime for which the victim did not agree to property reimbursment would result in the perpetrator losing his right to life and/or liberty. > > **Lib** : I didn’t state what you stated I stated, unless by “victim” you meant to say “criminal”. Do you view the two as ethically equivalent? I view denying your own words to be a lie. I view denying your own words in teh same thread in which they originally apeared to be a stupid lie. Edlyn: > [@](#): > > It would not only be reasonable, but fair, that the individual who initiated force would bear all court costs and attorneys fees. What if nobody is convicted? > [@](#): > > If an individual is a threat to the lives and safety of others, prison sentences should be given. In addition, the cost of his/her upkeep is at the prisoner’s expense. Since a prisoner is unlikely to be able to earn much money while incarcerated, who pays the tab then? > [@](#): > > As far as excuses… nope, nadda, forget it. Responsibility lies with the individual or the parent(s). As I said, simplistic and potentially cruel. Ignoring context when making decisions rarely results in the best result. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/68 "2000-03-07T06:09:00Z")
Um, Spiritus, before you haul off calling me a liar — and a stupid one at that — perhaps you ought to take a second look at what you quoted: **when a victim cannot be restored** and **cannot restore your photograph** versus what you paraphrased **the victim did not agree**. I talked about what the **criminal** would or would not do (restore the victim). You talked about what the **victim** would or would not do (agree to be restored). ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/69 "2000-03-06T19:14:00Z")
> [@](#): > > **Arnold** : I have a photograph of my (now-dead) father as a young man. You steal the photograph and burn it. The photograph cannot be restored. I can ask for your hands to be cut off? > > **Lib** : If the man cannot restore your photograph, then his life is yours . . . If you think this is overly harsh, then you will be lenient with the man. But if you think your photograph was precious and irreplaceable, then you will likely not be lenient with the man. At any rate, these are considerations that the man ought to have pondered before he tested your philanthropy. > > **Lib** : I talked about what the criminal would or would not do (restore the victim). You talked about what the victim would or would not do (agree to be restored). The hits just keep coming. You words, Lib. Live with them. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/70 "2000-03-06T19:17:00Z")
Or had you meant to state clearly that the victim, who exercises unilateral authority in determining punishment, has absolutely no input into the decision of whether a proposed restitution is satisfactory? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/71 "2000-03-06T19:20:00Z")
I have no problem living with my words, despite your bottomless inability to comprehend them. It is your paraphrases and interpretations of them that are, well, to use your word, stupid. Get someone to explain to you the difference between something a criminal refuses to replace and something that is not replaceable. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2000, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/72 "2000-03-06T20:51:00Z")
Or had you meant to state clearly that the victim, who exercises unilateral authority in determining punishment, has absolutely no input into the decision of whether a proposed restitution is satisfactory? ---
**Author:** ![Edlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8797f3/32.png) [@Edlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edlyn)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/73 "2000-03-07T03:30:00Z")
[quote] Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi: \*\* > [@](#): > > What if nobody is convicted?\*\* Then the determination of who bears the court cost and attorney’s fees should be decided by the judge. In such cases, it may be the Plaintiff who bears the cost. > [@](#): > > **Since a prisoner is unlikely to be able to earn much money while incarcerated, who pays the tab then?** Our current state owned prisons run like that, but that need not be so, Spiritus. Why not expand further on prisoners being productive? At least in Minnesota, some prisoners (did or do) produce licence plates or other goods. They are paid a wage for doing so. To tax peaceful honest citizens (including victims) to pay for criminals living expenses, etc., is unethical. The assets and wages of those convicted should be used for compensation. > [@](#): > > \*\*As I said, simplistic and potentially cruel. Ignoring context when making decisions rarely results in the best result. \*\* There is nothing inherently wrong with something being basic, therefore easy to understand and apply. With what I have presented to you, how could this be potentially cruel? To whom? If you would clarify your last sentence, it would be appreciated. * * * You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods- ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/74 "2000-03-07T05:25:00Z")
Edlyn: A court in which a plaintif might need to pay for bringing charges acts as a sever disincentive for poor people to seek justice. A court in which the judge is paid by either party is an invitation to corruption. A court independent of such economic bias must be funded by everyone, which of course is coersive in the “Libertarian” scheme. A punitive system based upon remuneration **or** loss of liberty is biased toward teh wealthy. A man capable of reparations need not fear jail, and thus is punished less severely than a poor man. A wealthy man may defraud with some impunity, so long as he is careful that his total liability never exceed his total assets. A man who has been mugged wakes bleeding. He grabs a cloth from a line to staunch the bleeding while he stumbles to the hospital. A child shoplifts a scarf from a store because it is pretty and she hasn’t hte money to pay for it. A woman steals linens from a laundry and sells them at a pawn shop to buy liquor. A system without awareness of context treats all of these situations as identical. Property is the only value. Do you really see no potential for cruelty? You accidentally destroy the property of a sadist. The particular property in question was an irreplaceble heirloom. As the victim, he is given your life to enact what retibution he feels will balance his loss. Do you still see no potential for cruelty? A madman fires a gun at you 6 times, but misses with every shot. The only property damaged was his own. With what crime an you charge him? These are just a few thoughts spun rapidly from the top of my head. Have you, who has had more time and reson to consider these issues deeply, never considered anything along these lines? * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/75 "2000-03-07T15:12:00Z")
> [@](#): > > These are just a few thoughts spun rapidly from the top of my head. Yeah, and it shows. do you _ever_ proofread _anything_ you post? > [@](#): > > A court in which a plaintif might need to pay for bringing charges acts as a sever disincentive for poor people to seek justice. A court in which the judge is paid by either party is an invitation to corruption. A court independent of such economic bias must be funded by everyone, which of course is coersive in the “Libertarian” scheme. Parties under contract with libertarian governments of any form have already paid for arbitration. > [@](#): > > A punitive system based upon remuneration or loss of liberty is biased toward teh wealthy. A man capable of reparations need not fear jail, and thus is punished less severely than a poor man. A wealthy man may defraud with some impunity, so long as he is careful that his total liability never exceed his total assets. To abridge liberty is to forfeit liberty. Period. Wealth in that regard is irrelevant. There are many things the poor cannot afford to take on. Why would you recommend that they take on crime? The point you keep missing again and again and again and again is this: if you are free to give your consent to whatever government you believe can best secure your safety and happiness, **then you may choose a government that YOU like best**. Want one where the plaintiff pays? Then, choose it. Want one where everybody pays an equal share? Then, choose it. Edlyn is tossing out ideas to you, that you sling off like pearls you do not recognize. She is attempting to appease you, explaining that if you don’t like it _this_ way, then you can have it _that_ way. > [@](#): > > A system without awareness of context treats all of these situations as identical. Oh, _now_ context matters. In another thread, you had said there _is_ no context, only organization. A statement like “property is the only value” shows a contempt and an ignorance about what property _is_. > [@](#): > > You accidentally destroy the property of a sadist. The particular property in question was an irreplaceble heirloom. As the victim, he is given your life to enact what retibution he feels will balance his loss. Do you still see no potential for cruelty? You would select a government that punishes people for _accidents_? Unbelievable. > [@](#): > > A madman fires a gun at you 6 times, but misses with every shot. The only property damaged was his own. With what crime an you charge him? Well, assault comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2000, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/76 "2000-03-07T19:01:00Z")
> [@](#): > > **Edlyn** Then the determination of who bears the court cost and attorney’s fees should be decided by the judge. In such cases, it may be the Plaintiff who bears the cost. > **Lib** Parties under contract with libertarian governments of any form have already paid for arbitration. You and edlyn are apparently not in agreement on this issue. Perhaps if you spent less time fuming about typographical errors and more time reading for comprehension you would make fewer such mistakes. > [@](#): > > Those who abridge rights should be forced to recompense their victims and restore them to their state prior to the tyranny, and their contract with their government should be voided because they stand in breach. As to what is fair retaliation when a victim cannot be restored, let the victim decide this. > > To abridge liberty is to forfeit liberty. Period. Wealth in that regard is irrelevant. Do you believe that the poor and the wealthy are equally able to make reparation? I would ask you to make up your mind, but I have learned better. > [@](#): > > Oh, now context matters. In another thread, you had said there is no context, only organization. that thread dealt with the characteristics of “gestalt”. This thread deals with hypothetical legal systems and their potential consequences. The elements which are apropos to a discussion are dependent upon the topic of discussion. You post dishonestly. That _context_ has become quite clear. > [@](#): > > A statement like “property is the only value” shows a contempt and an ignorance about what property is. > > All rights are entitlements of ownership. All crime is crime against property. > > Crime should be defined as the abridgement of rights. My contempt is not for intellectual concepts of property. > [@](#): > > You would select a government that punishes people for accidents? Unbelievable. No, I would select a system of justice in which contextual factors, intent is one example, are considered. Reducing all questions to terms of property loss removes such considerations. > [@](#): > > Well, assault comes to mind. What crime against property is present when you have suffered no harm? * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Edlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8797f3/32.png) [@Edlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edlyn)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2000, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/77 "2000-03-08T03:45:00Z")
> [@](#): > > **Edlyn** Then the determination of who bears the court cost and attorney’s fees should be decided by the judge. In such cases, it may be the Plaintiff who bears the cost. > **Lib** Parties under contract with libertarian governments of any form have already paid for arbitration. > > **Spiritus** You and edlyn are apparently not in agreement on this issue. That’s not necessarily true Spiritus. I would prefer Lib’s suggestion, but as Lib did correctly surmise, I was suggesting options that could be adopted into our court systems today or in the future for those who might consider adopting them. Now then… > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi: > Edlyn: > A court in which a plaintif might need to pay for bringing charges acts as a sever disincentive for poor people to seek justice. A court in which the judge is paid by either party is an invitation to corruption. A court independent of such economic bias must be funded by everyone, which of course is coersive in the “Libertarian” scheme. Last time I was made aware of it, there were filing fees, etc., that are charged by our courts. No one asked me if I could afford it. I was simply informed that the monies were due upon filing. But what I was suggesting by stating the plaintiff _may_ be the one who bears such cost, were for cases such as bringing frivolous or fraudulent lawsuits. I have heard of one case in which that was done. Until you brought it up, the issue of where the monies come from to pay judges salaries has not been addressed. A court must be independent of _any_ bias, not merely economic. As a side note, please don’t even try to tell me that in our current system judges cannot be corrupt. In some cases, the only test for appointments are their political connections. > [@](#): > > A punitive system based upon remuneration **or** loss of liberty is biased toward teh wealthy. A man capable of reparations need not fear jail, and thus is punished less severely than a poor man. A wealthy man may defraud with some impunity, so long as he is careful that his total liability never exceed his total assets. That’s quite an assumption you made. Did you even consider such common sense solutions such as returning property to the rightful owner? Or in the case something was damaged, that it be repaired/restored and returned to the owner; that court ordered payments could be arranged, etc.? Whatever gave you the idea that someone could simply buy their way out of jail? > [@](#): > > A man who has been mugged wakes bleeding. He grabs a cloth from a line to staunch the bleeding while he stumbles to the hospital. A child shoplifts a scarf from a store because it is pretty and she hasn’t hte money to pay for it. A woman steals linens from a laundry and sells them at a pawn shop to buy liquor. A system without awareness of context treats all of these situations as identical. Property is the only value. Do you really see no potential for cruelty? [sigh] Is it unreasonable that the man who was mugged walk a few steps further to the door and ask for assistance? He might not have to stumble along by himself to the hospital. [eyebrow raised] Would you suggest that because it was pretty and she had no money, that it was perfectly well and fine that she steal? Does this child not have a parent or two? Couldn’t the parent(s) make amends with the store owner? As far as the woman… please. I am addicted to nicotine, but that does not excuse me for doing the same. Nor should _anyone_ be excused no matter what personal addiction problem they have. > [@](#): > > You accidentally destroy the property of a sadist. The particular property in question was an irreplaceble heirloom. As the victim, he is given your life to enact what retibution he feels will balance his loss. Do you still see no potential for cruelty? Now, Spiritus. Get a grip on yourself. Common sense and logical reasoning are not that hard to obtain. > [@](#): > > A madman fires a gun at you 6 times, but misses with every shot. The only property damaged was his own. With what crime an you charge him? > > What crime against property is present when you have suffered no harm? The threat of physical harm and loss of life. **My life and my body belong to me, owned by me, alone.** No one has a ‘right’ to either of them without my voluntary consent. > [@](#): > > These are just a few thoughts spun rapidly from the top of my head. Have you, who has had more time and reson to consider these issues deeply, never considered anything along these lines? ## Obviously, a lot more than you have. 😉 You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods- ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2000, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/78 "2000-03-08T06:48:00Z")
Now Edlyn, I have been careful not to let my differences with your fiancee color my responses to you. Is it to much to ask that a peaceful and honest libertarian approach a similar standard? > [@](#): > > I would prefer Lib’s suggestion, but as Lib did correctly surmise, I was suggesting options that could be adopted into our court systems today or in the future for those who might consider adopting them. Was that supposed to be clear from this exchange? > [@](#): > > **Edlyn** It would not only be reasonable, but fair, that the individual who initiated force would bear all court costs and attorneys fees. > > **]me** What if nobody is convicted? > > \*\* Then the determination of who bears the court cost and attorney’s fees should be decided by the judge. In such cases, it may be the Plaintiff who bears the cost. I am afraid I entirely missed the passage in which you made it clear that you were no longer talking about Libertarian’s utopian vision but were instead discussing a compromise based upon our present judicial branch. > [@](#): > > Last time I was made aware of it, there were filing fees, etc., that are charged by our courts. No one asked me if I could afford it. I was simply informed that the monies were due upon filing. Filing fees are not on the same scale as full court costs for a trial. If you are uncertain about this, I am sure that representative numbers can eb found. > [@](#): > > Until you brought it up, the issue of where the monies come from to pay judges salaries has not been addressed. I think the exchange above shows clearly that you were the one who first mentioned funding for the courts. > [@](#): > > As a side note, please don’t even try to tell me that in our current system judges cannot be corrupt. In some cases, the only test for appointments are their political connections. I have never argued that our present system is immune to corruption, though there is some doubt whether elected judges or appointed judges are more fit and impartial. I do think it is appropriate to ask whether the Libertarian justice system will tend to increase or decrease the element of corruption. For myself, I view making judges’ income dependent upon the particular individuals who appear before them to be an unwise decision. > [@](#): > > Did you even consider such common sense solutions such as returning property to the rightful owner? Or in the case something was damaged, that it be repaired/restored and returned to the owner; that court ordered payments could be arranged, etc.? Whatever gave you the idea that someone could simply buy their way out of jail? Every sentence before the last in that paragraph represents a means of buying your way out of jail, unless the Libertarian justice system now stipulates loss of liberty **and** remuneration for all crimes. If so, please make it clear to me how this differs from our present system. > [@](#): > > Is it unreasonable that the man who was mugged walk a few steps further to the door and ask for assistance? He might not have to stumble along by himself to the hospital. And if there is no one home? If the owners refuse to open the door? Why must you inject additional hypotheticals into the situation? Are you not the one arguing that context was irrelevant? I simply asked you whether all of those situations would and should be judged identically. More specifically, I asked you whether you saw the potential for cruelty in doing so. > [@](#): > > Would you suggest that because it was pretty and she had no money, that it was perfectly well and fine that she steal? Does this child not have a parent or two? Couldn’t the parent(s) make amends with the store owner? I suggested nothing about how I exected any of the cases to be judged. > [@](#): > > As far as the woman… please. I am addicted to nicotine, but that does not excuse me for doing the same. Nor should anyone be excused no matter what personal addiction problem they have. Again, I made no implication that I felt this case was more or less heinous than the others. I simply asked you whether all three should be punished in **exactly** the same manner, regardless of any circumstance beyond the theft of property. Why do you recoil from giving a simple answer? > [@](#): > > Now, Spiritus. Get a grip on yourself. Common sense and logical reasoning are not that hard to obtain. On a good day, I agree with you. I am quite happy to exclude accidents from the category “crimes”. I think it is absolutely necessary to do so. What I did notm and still do not, see from you or your fiancee is a clear statement that intentionality must be considered when administering justice. So far, all I have seen is the rigorous philosophical principle that all crime stems from denial of property rights. I also have your statement, “As far as excuses… nope, nadda, forget it.” What is “It was an accident” if it is not an excuse. You both harangue me for my outrageous example, yet you fail to make the simple statement that would make the point unnecessary. Why? > [@](#): > > The threat of physical harm and loss of life. There has been no loss of life, no injury. Is a threat now reason for punishment? I understand how we justify that in our present system, but how does that grow out of a strict Libertarian construction? Is it th eintent that is punishable? Is someone a criminal because they have given you reason to be afraid? What I am asking for is a strict Libertarian reason for the punishment of an act which has resulted on no property loss. We both agree, I think, that attempted murder (or reckless endangerment) is a bad thing. I am interested in how you punish it, though, without violating the proposition that “all crime is crime against property.” > [@](#): > > Obviously, a lot more than you have. I would hope so, since you advocate this system as a clear improvement upon our present system of justice. I would also hope that I might see the evidence of that extra thought and consideration. It is not obvious if you do not share it. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2000, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656/79 "2000-03-08T07:41:00Z")
Ooops, sorry for the lost /b above. BTW, Lib, before you are again tempted to utter things like: > [@](#): > > what you errantly, disrespectfully, and repeatedly call my “utopian vision” > **and** > Is there a libertarian thread here where I have not cried fould with this snide and gratuitous reference to a utopian concept? You might think about [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001224-5.html) thread. It is tempting to let you wade through the text blindly, but since others might be interested I will quote a relevant passage: > [@](#): > > I think libertarianism is the political application of the Categorical Imperative. It is the ethic that, if followed by everyone, would create the best possible world. > I don’t see how the world can possibly be better than that each person in it is free to achieve to his own maximum potential. And in case you haven’t a dictionary handy: **Utopia:** An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects. Now, what is that word again for someone who repeatedly makes deceptive or self-contradictory statements . . . Oh, and as long as I’m here: Or had you meant to state clearly that the victim, who exercises unilateral authority in determining punishment, has absolutely no input into the decision of whether a proposed restitution is satisfactory? * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-solution-for-our-worst-murderers/17656.md?page=3)